The tuition fee effect, revealed
Jonathan Jones 3:16pm
The coalition’s tuition fee rise will put young people from poor backgrounds off
applying to university — or so we were told by Labour and the National Union of Students. But now we can actually put that claim to the test. UCAS today revealed how many of that first year group to be affected by the rise have applied to university.
So what does those number tell us? Looking at the headlines resulting from the release, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Team Miliband have been vindicated. ‘University applications plunge 9% after tuition fees are trebled,’ proclaims the Daily Mail. ‘Thousands give up on university because of tuition fees,’ says the Telegraph. And the BBC: ‘UK university applications down as fees rise’.
But a closer look at the numbers reveals a different picture entirely.
First up, the fall that’s fuelling the headlines — 462,507 UK-domiciled applicants in 2012, down from 506,388 in 2011 — isn’t all that dramatic when put into a wider
context. 462,507 still represents an 8.8 per cent increase on 2009.
But even if we take UCAS’s point that, for 18 year-olds in England, ‘around one person in twenty who would have been expected to apply if the recent trend of increasing application rates was maintained for 2012 did not do so’, the facts still don’t quite support the Labour/NUS argument.
UCAS break down the figures to look at the application rates in the ‘most disadvantaged’ fifth of areas and the ‘most advantaged’ fifth. And instead of that rate declining
more in the disadvantaged areas — as you’d expect if the tuition fee hike were putting off poorer people — it is essentially flat, compared to a 2.5 percentage point drop in the
most advantaged areas.
So, if the tuition fee rise is responsible for the fall in university applications, it seems to be deterring rich applicants more than poor ones. That would suggest that, by Labour’s account,
it’s actually helping social mobility rather than hindering it.
Previous
Frederick de Fossard
January 30th, 2012 3:53pm Report this commentNice conclusion. The real measure will be in the following years anyway, this year was - of course - going to show a difference in application rates, that's why the comparison with 2009 is far more valuable than 2010. I'm willing to bet that applications will increase next year and for many years afterwards.
Holly ......
January 30th, 2012 4:27pm Report this commentComing from a 'poor' family, IF I had my time over again, I would now be going to university, studying something relevant that made sure I earned over £21k, thus not waisting everyone's time, including mine.
However, IF I was from a better off family, I would just go where the 'family influence'
took me,It's not what you know....
Now IF I was from a wealthy family, why would I give a hoot, unless my very rich parents were immortal?
REPay
January 30th, 2012 5:23pm Report this commentAnyone who wants to go and does not go to university beacause of the financial implications is perhaps not clever enough to warrant a place. The conditions are generous.
HJ
January 30th, 2012 5:24pm Report this commentThere is also the fact that fewer people took a gap year and instead applied to university last year (in order to avoid higher fees).
This means that last year's figures were higher and this year's will be correspondingly lower. I wonder what proportion of the drop in applications was down to this distortion?
MilkSnatcher
January 30th, 2012 5:32pm Report this commentHolly..... @4.27pm. Employers are mostly meritocratic. SOme (a few) are not but the effect is wildly exaggerated. If people from disadvantaged backgrounds study "relevant" degrees and rich wastrels study "non-relevant" degrees, the better off kids will gradually breed themselves out of the employment system to be dominated by people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Good result all round.
We can't always have everything in life, and if disadvantaged people are put off studying "non-relevant" degrees, that's a shame, but not a train smash given the state of University finances. That's actually the "price" of social mobility, mobility which is what the Government wants to achieve.
Maggie
January 30th, 2012 6:05pm Report this comment"So what does those number tell us? "
It tells us that a lot of courses that lead to a degree in Hairdressing, Media Studies, Football Culture, Surfing Studies and the study of gayness have been abolished.
Jase
January 30th, 2012 7:09pm Report this commentFees have put me off going back and finishing my last to years. I'm a mature student and just can't afford the new prices. I get no help as well as my wife earns the threshold amount and I as a part time work put us over.
David Lindsay
January 30th, 2012 7:17pm Report this commentYou, or your parents, will still be allowed to pay nine thousand pounds upfront to a university at the start of each academic year. That is a lot less than the fees for the grandest schools. And it would, on the basis of parental wealth, avoid the above-inflation, profiteering interest payable by those who will have to wait until after they themselves have graduated and established themselves in careers.
It doesn't add up...
January 30th, 2012 7:24pm Report this commentWhat do the numbers tell us?
There are more smart rich kids who understand that £9k per year is poor value for the courses they can qualify for. There are more smart poor kids who understand that they'll never pay for it all anyway, because if they spend their life on benefits having had a blast at "university" it'll be written off before they retire.
Hexhamgeezer
January 30th, 2012 7:54pm Report this commentI guess the failure rates are now likely to drop in 3 years time as well
john gerard
January 30th, 2012 8:36pm Report this commentFewer people at university? Good. That's exactly what's needed. Instead of all this fannying about doing social studies.
daniel maris
January 30th, 2012 10:29pm Report this commentYou've taken cheer leading to a new level Jonathan, where you cheer more loudly when your team is losing than when they are winning. But it doesn't sit well with a journal of serious political analysis.
steve
January 30th, 2012 10:46pm Report this commentThe truth is that students pay NOTHING to go to University as the fees are only collected AFTER they have graduated and are in well paid jobs.
Their financial circumstances and backgrounds are thereore completely irrelevant as to whether they can "afford" to embark on University education.
The big lie of the Left is that they make arguments based on the Straw man that the Fees have to be paid up front and consequently poorer students cant afford this.
Sir Everard Digby
January 31st, 2012 7:12am Report this commentAh- a new drama. As others have said,tuition fees only become a debt if you find gainful employment earning a more than reasonable salary.
I would take out a mortgage on those terms.
What is today's definition of 'poor'?
Is it an extension of the 'squeezed middle' -perhaps the 'squeezed bottom'?
The word,like many others has been politicised to a point where it has no meaning.
michael
January 31st, 2012 10:42am Report this commentI seem to remember 'the surge' last year to get in free. -Which was either a bare faced lie, or this years stats are being isolated and spun to equivocally mislead ...no change their then.
commentator
January 31st, 2012 11:03am Report this commentThe cheerleaders for the rip-off tuition fees scheme (notably Willetts) always trot out the mantra that you pay nothing upfront. Such people are conmen. Unless you end up poorly paid, you will pay through the nose for most of the rest of your life for the privilege of paying nothing upfront. The proposed interest rate is penal and there are further penalties if you attempt to pay off the loans early. The new loans scheme is a scam in the best traditions of subprime mortgages with upfront "teaser" interest rates.
dorothy wilson
January 31st, 2012 11:09am Report this commentJase: You could try the OU. The courses offered there are not cheap but cheaper than those at the more traditional style universities. They also mean you can to continue to work. That is what I did.
Back to top